Check Those Notams

[pelmet]

C-GTOP, a privately registered Cessna C340A, was conducting an IFR training flight out of
Calgary/Springbank Airport (CYBW), AB, with 2 pilots on board. C-GTOP commenced the RNAV
RWY35 approach into Drumheller Municipal Airport (CEG4), AB. The aerodrome was closed via
NOTAM for runway maintenance; IFR approaches to the airport were not authorized by NOTAM.
There were 2 vehicles on the runway. The vehicle operators attempted to wave off the aircraft on
final: however, C-GTOP conducted a touch and go landing on Runway 35 with both vehicles still on
the runway. There were no injuries or damage to the aircraft or vehicles.

[photofly]

C-GTOP, a privately registered Cessna C340A, was conducting an IFR training flight out of
Calgary/Springbank Airport (CYBW), AB, with 2 pilots on board. C-GTOP commenced the RNAV
RWY35 approach into Drumheller Municipal Airport (CEG4), AB. The aerodrome was closed via
NOTAM for runway maintenance; IFR approaches to the airport were not authorized by NOTAM.
There were 2 vehicles on the runway. The vehicle operators attempted to wave off the aircraft on
final: however, C-GTOP conducted a touch and go landing on Runway 35 with both vehicles still on
the runway. There were no injuries or damage to the aircraft or vehicles.

Here's the missing metadata:

[pelmet]

A few pointless posts edited out. Let it go, you guys!

[C-GKNT]

Not to excuse neglecting to check notams but...

How can you have equipment on an uncontrolled runway without someone at least having a hand held radio tuned to the local frequency?

[Bede]

Skill testing trivia question of the day:

What CAR did the pilot the pilot contravene?

[7ECA]

602.71: The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, before commencing a flight, be familiar with the available information that is appropriate to the intended flight.

You could go further down the rabbit hole and throw out 602.96 (2), and for good measure the always popular 602.01...

[digits_]

At least no Russian aircraft have entered Canadian airspace. Good thing that NOTAM is always on top. Priorities, right?

[rookiepilot]

Not to excuse neglecting to check notams but...

How can you have equipment on an uncontrolled runway without someone at least having a hand held radio tuned to the local frequency?

That would wreck the popular narrative that it’s always a stupid GA pilot at fault.

[Tbayer2021]

Not to excuse neglecting to check notams but...

How can you have equipment on an uncontrolled runway without someone at least having a hand held radio tuned to the local frequency?

That would wreck the popular narrative that it’s always a stupid GA pilot at fault.

No narrative here, it was a stupid GA pilot at fault. Shot illegal approaches and landed at an airport that was NOTAM'ed closed. I guess GA pilots don't think they should check NOTAMs. Or maybe they did and didn't feel like observing them? Macho attitudes are not exactly rare in the GA community.

[rookiepilot]

Not to excuse neglecting to check notams but...

How can you have equipment on an uncontrolled runway without someone at least having a hand held radio tuned to the local frequency?

That would wreck the popular narrative that it’s always a stupid GA pilot at fault.

No narrative here, it was a stupid GA pilot at fault. Shot illegal approaches and landed at an airport that was NOTAM'ed closed. I guess GA pilots don't think they should check NOTAMs. Or maybe they did and didn't feel like observing them? Macho attitudes are not exactly rare in the GA community.

Arrogance isn’t exact rare in the professional pilot community, either.

Did you read the first line of my quote of the other post:

“Not to excuse neglecting to check Notams”.

I know its hard. Try to keep up.

Its always the narrative here.

It wasn’t a GA pilot who came less than 100 feet from landing on three other jets, BTW. Was 2 professional pilots.

That’s a good one. Doubt any of us amateurs will top that.

[Tbayer2021]

That would wreck the popular narrative that it’s always a stupid GA pilot at fault.

No narrative here, it was a stupid GA pilot at fault. Shot illegal approaches and landed at an airport that was NOTAM'ed closed. I guess GA pilots don't think they should check NOTAMs. Or maybe they did and didn't feel like observing them? Macho attitudes are not exactly rare in the GA community.

Arrogance isn’t exact rare in the professional pilot community, either.

Did you read the first line of my quote of the other post:

“Not to excuse neglecting to check Notams”.

I know its hard. Try to keep up.

Its always the narrative here.

It wasn’t a GA pilot who came less than 100 feet from landing on three other jets, BTW. Was 2 professional pilots.

That’s a good one. Doubt any of us amateurs will top that.

I was replying to your comment, not someone else's. I was talking about this particular incident, not any other. I love how your defence is classic "whataboutism". Keep up.

We make plenty of mistakes in the Profesional world. But I have no doubt the GA world has us beat. I mean, why do you crash so much more?

[digits_]

The approaches here were likely not the issue though, the touch and go most certainly was.

IFR training flight likely means they were flying VFR and practicing IFR procedures. That's allowed, even with that particular NOTAM. After all, if you're VFR you're not flying an IFR approach and you can fly a track and course that matches the IFR approach path that you're simulating.

[rookiepilot]

No narrative here, it was a stupid GA pilot at fault. Shot illegal approaches and landed at an airport that was NOTAM'ed closed. I guess GA pilots don't think they should check NOTAMs. Or maybe they did and didn't feel like observing them? Macho attitudes are not exactly rare in the GA community.

Arrogance isn’t exact rare in the professional pilot community, either.

Did you read the first line of my quote of the other post:

“Not to excuse neglecting to check Notams”.

I know its hard. Try to keep up.

Its always the narrative here.

It wasn’t a GA pilot who came less than 100 feet from landing on three other jets, BTW. Was 2 professional pilots.

That’s a good one. Doubt any of us amateurs will top that.

I was replying to your comment, not someone else's. I was talking about this particular incident, not any other. I love how your defence is classic "whataboutism". Keep up.

We make plenty of mistakes in the Profesional world. But I have no doubt the GA world has us beat. I mean, why do you crash so much more?

Single pilot, single engine piston flying doesn’t have QUITE as much redundancy as multi crew, multi engined turbine flying, we could start there….but lots of reasons, stupidity in abundance included.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Was an IFR approach clearance issued to the airplane by ATC ?

[photofly]

Was an IFR approach clearance issued to the airplane by ATC ?

That's a sensible question to ask. The NOTAM about approaches not being authorized applies more to ATC not to provide a clearance than it does to pilots not to fly an approach if a clearance is granted. If a pilot requests an approach from ATC and is cleared for it, that's all they need. Or, as is most likely in this case, they didn't need (and didn't ask for) an approach clearance because they were flying under the VFR.

NOTAMs are not, of themselves, regulatory instruments. Where airspace is closed it's done by the Minister, and the authority for doing so is usually given in the NOTAM ("by virtue of section blah of the Aeronautics Act" etc. etc.) I don't think there's an offence of landing at a closed aerodrome, any more than there's an offence of landing at somewhere that isn't an aerodrome, or of not getting prior permission to land at a private aerodrome.

Yes, the pilot should have read the NOTAMs.

It's possible that 602.96 (2) comes into play, but the pilot could say that he or she actually was satisfied that there was no likelihood of collision with the vehicles, based on their location, disposition, etc. Given the outcome, who is to say the pilot was wrong? And if a bunch of people with trucks at the threshold of the runway you're approaching are all staring at your airplane and waving frantically it's fairly certain none of them are going suddenly and unexpectedly to move those vehicles to where they could become a collision hazard.

Next question: did the aerodrome operator comply with 301.04(4)(b):

(4) Where a runway or part of a runway is closed, the operator of the aerodrome shall place closed markings, as set out in Schedule I to this Subpart, on the runway as follows:
..
(b) where the runway is greater than 450 m (1,500 feet) but not greater than 1 220 m (4,000 feet) in length, a closed marking of not less than one-half the dimensions set out in that Schedule shall be located at each end of the closed runway or part thereof and an additional closed marking of the same dimensions shall be located on the closed runway or part thereof at a point equidistant from the two markings;

I'm going to guess the aerodrome operator didn't comply with this part. It's not mentioned in the report, and a temporary closed marking in the middle of a runway, one that can be removed, is a physical object with which the aircraft would have collided.

Is this important thing to do? Apparently it is, because it's mandatory in the regulations and the operator is liable to fine of up to $25k for failing to do so. If vehicles on the runway were easy to spot then there'd be no need for the stipulation for closed markings.

[photofly]

double post

[photofly]

..

[DHC-1 Jockey]

If a pilot requests an approach from ATC and is cleared for it, that's all they need. Or, as is most likely in this case, they didn't need (and didn't ask for) an approach clearance because they were flying under the VFR.

You missed the part in the report that states they were "conducting an IFR training flight." Therefore, they would have needed an approach clearance to conduct the RNAV RWY35. I don't see where you assume they're operating VFR.

And to say that if ATC clears you for it, "that's all they need" is incorrect as well. ATC can make mistakes, and it appears the controller did in this case. It's termed an Operational Incident (OI) and the controller will be debriefed on what occurred and how to ensure a mistake like that doesn't happen again. That being said, it's still incumbent on the PIC to not request a clearance or approach that is NOTAM'd unavailable, and they definitely shouldn't attempt to land at an airport that's NOTAM'd closed. That one is solely on the pilots.

Even though it looks like the controller also made a mistake in this case, it should never have got to that point since if the pilots read their NOTAMS, they would have never even attempted to fly to Drumheller.

It also looks like they're not the first to attempt to land at this airport which was closed. On May 31:

Narrative: At 1320Z, the pilot of a privately registered Cessna 140A on a flight from Cold Lake, AB (CEN5) advised they were landing at Drumheller, AB (CEG4), which was closed by NOTAM.

Pilots need to be better than this, and I say this as an ATC and a pilot myself.

[photofly]

If a pilot requests an approach from ATC and is cleared for it, that's all they need. Or, as is most likely in this case, they didn't need (and didn't ask for) an approach clearance because they were flying under the VFR.

You missed the part in the report that states they were "conducting an IFR training flight." Therefore, they would have needed an approach clearance to conduct the RNAV RWY35. I don't see where you assume they're operating VFR.

It depends on how you interpret the report. An IFR training flight can be a flight training for flight under IFR; it doesn't have to be under IFR at the time. Many instrument training flights are conducted VFR to avoid delays, with simulated approaches requested, or simply carried out without ATC contact in class E airspace.

In this case either the flight was either VFR and didn't need an approach; or was IFR and was granted a clearance for an approach contrary to the NOTAM. That would also mean the ATCO permitted not just an approach but oversaw a landing at a closed aerodrome, which is a much bigger procedural error than any committed by the pilot. Since the report doesn't say that, I prefer the former explanation.

And to say that if ATC clears you for it, "that's all they need" is incorrect as well. ATC can make mistakes, and it appears the controller did in this case. It's termed an Operational Incident (OI) and the controller will be debriefed on what occurred and how to ensure a mistake like that doesn't happen again. That being said, it's still incumbent on the PIC to not request a clearance or approach that is NOTAM'd unavailable,

I (clearly) don't agree with some of that. If airspace is closed by the MInister IAW with the Act, then a NOTAM will say so and a pilot commits a breach by entering that airspace. Other than that, the only permission a pilot needs to fly in any airspace is determined by the class of airspace and flight rules in play at the time; where that requires clearance from ATC, a clearance, once given, is valid, even if it was given in error. Pilots do not have to engage an analysis behind ATC's decision-making to determine if it was correct before they accept a clearance; nor, as an ATCO yourself, would you want them to.

More generally, NOTAMs are notices, not rules, and you can't be punished simply for breaking one - a mechanism to do so doesn't exist in law.

I agree that it's possible an ATCO made an error here; I couldn't comment on what internal procedures ATC has to follow.

and they definitely shouldn't attempt to land at an airport that's NOTAM'd closed. That one is solely on the pilots.

I agree, from a coulda-shoulda-woulda point of view. But from a punishment point of view, I don't think there's much TC can hang on the pilots.

Even though it looks like the controller also made a mistake in this case, it should never have got to that point since if the pilots read their NOTAMS, they would have never even attempted to fly to Drumheller.

It also looks like they're not the first to attempt to land at this airport which was closed. On May 31:

Narrative: At 1320Z, the pilot of a privately registered Cessna 140A on a flight from Cold Lake, AB (CEN5) advised they were landing at Drumheller, AB (CEG4), which was closed by NOTAM.

Pilots need to be better than this, and I say this as an ATC and a pilot myself.

Even more reason for the airport operator to follow the requirements to mark a closed runway as specified in the regulations.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

It depends on how you interpret the report. An IFR training flight can be a flight training for flight under IFR; it doesn't have to be under IFR at the time. Many instrument training flights are conducted VFR to avoid delays, with simulated approaches requested, or simply carried out without ATC contact in class E airspace.

In this case either the flight was either VFR and didn't need an approach; or was IFR and was granted a clearance for an approach contrary to the NOTAM. That would also mean the ATCO permitted not just an approach but oversaw a landing at a closed aerodrome, which is a much bigger procedural error than any committed by the pilot. Since the report doesn't say that, I prefer the former explanation.

Yes, many IFR training flights are conducted VFR, but since the report specifically states "IFR Training Flight," I don't see how you can assume they're operating VFR. The more logical assumption is that they're operating IFR due to the wording of the report.

Pilots do not have to engage an analysis behind ATC's decision-making to determine if it was correct before they accept a clearance; nor, as an ATCO yourself, would you want them to.

I sure do want them to analyze my decision making. If I clear someone to land on a runway that's NOTAM'd closed, I would hope the pilot has read the NOTAMS and then question why I'm assigning them to land on a closed surface.

and they definitely shouldn't attempt to land at an airport that's NOTAM'd closed. That one is solely on the pilots.

I agree, from a coulda-shoulda-woulda point of view. But from a punishment point of view, I don't think there's much TC can hang on the pilots.

So are you saying NOTAMs are advisory only, and that pilots can freely operate contrary to existing NOTAMs just because there's nothing TC can enforce? To be clear, I'm not advocating for "punishment" of the pilots OR ATC, I'm advocating for better situational awareness, pilot decision making and general airmanship.

For example, at the airport I work at, the main runway was closed for line painting last week, leaving the shorter secondary runway as the only option. The NOTAM was issued to this effect over 12 hours in advance of the closure. The day of the closure, a B1900 cargo plane was inbound and apparently unaware of the main runway closure and only learned of it due to the ATIS broadcast. After holding and running their numbers, they determined they were unable to land on the short runway and decided to divert to their alternate. If the pilots (and dispatch) had read their NOTAMS, they could have run the numbers before taking off, and would probably have never elected to depart in the first place. All they did was waste their time and a lot of fuel.

[photofly]

It depends on how you interpret the report. An IFR training flight can be a flight training for flight under IFR; it doesn't have to be under IFR at the time. Many instrument training flights are conducted VFR to avoid delays, with simulated approaches requested, or simply carried out without ATC contact in class E airspace.

In this case either the flight was either VFR and didn't need an approach; or was IFR and was granted a clearance for an approach contrary to the NOTAM. That would also mean the ATCO permitted not just an approach but oversaw a landing at a closed aerodrome, which is a much bigger procedural error than any committed by the pilot. Since the report doesn't say that, I prefer the former explanation.

Yes, many IFR training flights are conducted VFR, but since the report specifically states "IFR Training Flight," I don't see how you can assume they're operating VFR. The more logical assumption is that they're operating IFR due to the wording of the report.

if it was an IFR flight they couldn’t have conducted a touch and go without an approach clearance, and a professional licenced controller giving an approach clearance to a closed runway is as big as or bigger procedural error than an pilot touching down on one. I think it’s much less likely that an ATCO would make that mistake than a pilot, and the alternative is that the aircraft was operating VFR at the time. It could be either way.

Pilots do not have to engage an analysis behind ATC's decision-making to determine if it was correct before they accept a clearance; nor, as an ATCO yourself, would you want them to.

I sure do want them to analyze my decision making. If I clear someone to land on a runway that's NOTAM'd closed, I would hope the pilot has read the NOTAMS and then question why I'm assigning them to land on a closed surface.

Obviously you want the pilot to question your wrong decisions and immediately accept the correct ones without engaging in radio chatter that uses up valuable time on a busy channel. Hindsight is like that. The truth is the pilot doesn’t have to question either, whether you want them to or not, and the pilot not doing so isn’t relevant to a mistake the ATCO may have made. Perhaps the aerodrome was reopened after the aircraft departed? If an ATCO gives an approach clearance, and on a touch and go they would be protecting the airspace for the departure too, the pilot would be entitled to assume the aerodrome was open. After all, who else is sitting at a desk with availability of up-to-the-minute information if not the ATCO?

and they definitely shouldn't attempt to land at an airport that's NOTAM'd closed. That one is solely on the pilots.

I agree, from a coulda-shoulda-woulda point of view. But from a punishment point of view, I don't think there's much TC can hang on the pilots.

So are you saying NOTAMs are advisory only, and that pilots can freely operate contrary to existing NOTAMs just because there's nothing TC can enforce? To be clear, I'm not advocating for "punishment" of the pilots OR ATC, I'm advocating for better situational awareness, pilot decision making and general airmanship.

Most NOTAMs - this one included - are obviously “informational”, to enable correct decision-making. Towers, lights u/s, obstructions etc. in this case the NOTAM was providing the information that the aerodrome was closed. Of itself, the NOTAM didn’t forbid or permit anything. And note the wording that approaches were “not authorized”. Pilots don’t need “authorization” to fly an approach - just a clearance from ATC.

For example, at the airport I work at, the main runway was closed for line painting last week, leaving the shorter secondary runway as the only option. The NOTAM was issued to this effect over 12 hours in advance of the closure. The day of the closure, a B1900 cargo plane was inbound and apparently unaware of the main runway closure and only learned of it due to the ATIS broadcast. After holding and running their numbers, they determined they were unable to land on the short runway and decided to divert to their alternate. If the pilots (and dispatch) had read their NOTAMS, they could have run the numbers before taking off, and would probably have never elected to depart in the first place. All they did was waste their time and a lot of fuel.

I do agree with the wider point, and the thread title. But it’s also helpful to learn from a discussion about things too. Did your airport operator put out the signage required by CAR301.04?

[digits_]

Photofly brings up some excellent points.

1) Can ATC overrule NOTAMs?
I've landed on runways that were closed according to a NOTAM, only to find them operational when I arrive at the airport. I've done circuit training at an airport that had a NOTAM 'no circuit training due to grass cutting'. But the grass cutters were on a lunch break, so I was told to go ahead. I've entered airspace that was closed for VFR traffic on an IFR flight plan, only to be asked by ATC to proceed VFR into said airspace because it was 'easier to deal with'. In all these instances I did query the appropriate ATC or radio regarding the existence of the NOTAM. Most (but not all) were aware of the NOTAM and specifically told me that I could do what I was trying to do.

2) Just relying on a NOTAM is obviously not enough. What if the runway or airport got closed while you were already airborne? There's no system in place for that, other than ATC. You have the required markings, but there might not be time to install those. I've closed a runway because my aircraft was disabled in the middle of it. There were no markings, but there was a NOTAM closing the runway. It was an uncontrolled airport. A plane landed 5 minutes after I got the airplane off the runway. They were likely unaware of the NOTAM. The NOTAM was also still in place when they landed, as I was still dealing with the plane.


I don't agree with this part though:

It's possible that 602.96 (2) comes into play, but the pilot could say that he or she actually was satisfied that there was no likelihood of collision with the vehicles, based on their location, disposition, etc. Given the outcome, who is to say the pilot was wrong? And if a bunch of people with trucks at the threshold of the runway you're approaching are all staring at your airplane and waving frantically it's fairly certain none of them are going suddenly and unexpectedly to move those vehicles to where they could become a collision hazard.

There have been a few links to some tribunal reports where the position of the tribunal was something along the lines of 'just because nobody got hurt/nothing got damaged doesn't mean that what you did wasn't reckless/unsafe'

And to say that if ATC clears you for it, "that's all they need" is incorrect as well. ATC can make mistakes, and it appears the controller did in this case. It's termed an Operational Incident (OI) and the controller will be debriefed on what occurred and how to ensure a mistake like that doesn't happen again. That being said, it's still incumbent on the PIC to not request a clearance or approach that is NOTAM'd unavailable, and they definitely shouldn't attempt to land at an airport that's NOTAM'd closed. That one is solely on the pilots.

Just because ATC can make mistakes, doesn't mean that a pilot needs more than a clearance.

it should never have got to that point since if the pilots read their NOTAMS, they would have never even attempted to fly to Drumheller.

Not true, it was a training flight. They might have set out practicing some go-arounds or missed approached and might have gotten caught up in the moment and actually landed. A training environment can be quite hectic, I've certainly had students do a touch and go while I was originally planning on them going around. Not at a closed runway, but if there are no markings, I could see how this might have happened, even if they were aware of the NOTAM. Although I agree it's more likely they were not aware of the closure.

[photofly]

I don't agree with this part though:

It's possible that 602.96 (2) comes into play, but the pilot could say that he or she actually was satisfied that there was no likelihood of collision with the vehicles, based on their location, disposition, etc. Given the outcome, who is to say the pilot was wrong? And if a bunch of people with trucks at the threshold of the runway you're approaching are all staring at your airplane and waving frantically it's fairly certain none of them are going suddenly and unexpectedly to move those vehicles to where they could become a collision hazard.

There have been a few links to some tribunal reports where the position of the tribunal was something along the lines of 'just because nobody got hurt/nothing got damaged doesn't mean that what you did wasn't reckless/unsafe'

You're conflating two issues. 602.96(2) doesn't require an absence of recklessness or lack of safety; it requires the pilot, in the moment, to "be satisfied there was no likelihood of collision". It doesn't require the pilot to be correctly satisfied, or reasonably satisfied, or satisfied to any level of objective judgement, whether that judgement is based on what was known by the pilot at the time, or what turned out later to be true.

If you see some vehicles on the runway, they're not moving, and the operators are all looking at you, then depending on circumstance, you could be satisfied that landing on a different part of the runway generated no likelihood of collision.

602.01 says 'No person shall operate an aircraft in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.'

The judgement about likelihood there isn't from the pilot's point of view, and can be exercised after all the facts are known. If it turns out that a situation was "likely to endanger" on when viewed from facts not known to the pilot, that would be a defence of "due diligence". But I don't see that is engaged in 602.96(2).

Can ATC overrule NOTAMs?

Routinely. Circuits or sightseeing can be NOTAMed as not available; you are still permitted to ask ATC for a sightseeing flight or a circuit, and they can grant permission.

[digits_]

I don't agree with this part though:

It's possible that 602.96 (2) comes into play, but the pilot could say that he or she actually was satisfied that there was no likelihood of collision with the vehicles, based on their location, disposition, etc. Given the outcome, who is to say the pilot was wrong? And if a bunch of people with trucks at the threshold of the runway you're approaching are all staring at your airplane and waving frantically it's fairly certain none of them are going suddenly and unexpectedly to move those vehicles to where they could become a collision hazard.

There have been a few links to some tribunal reports where the position of the tribunal was something along the lines of 'just because nobody got hurt/nothing got damaged doesn't mean that what you did wasn't reckless/unsafe'

You're conflating two issues. 602.96(2) doesn't require an absence of recklessness or lack of safety; it requires the pilot, in the moment, to "be satisfied there was no likelihood of collision". It doesn't require the pilot to be correctly satisfied, or reasonably satisfied, or satisfied to any level of objective judgement, whether that judgement is based on what was known by the pilot at the time, or what turned out later to be true.

If you see some vehicles on the runway, they're not moving, and the operators are all looking at you, then depending on circumstance, you could be satisfied that landing on a different part of the runway generated no likelihood of collision.

602.01 says 'No person shall operate an aircraft in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.'

The judgement about likelihood there isn't from the pilot's point of view, and can be exercised after all the facts are known. If it turns out that a situation was "likely to endanger" on when viewed from facts not know to the pilot, that would be a defence of "due diligence". But I don't see that is engaged in 602.96(2).

Don't you have the same subjective determination to establish how likely a collision will be?

Pilot A sees vehicles, estimates he will never get closer than 80 feet to them, and deems it acceptable to continue. During landing he doesn't get closer than 79 feet.
Pilot B sees vehicles, estimates he will never get closer than 1 foot to them, and deems it acceptable to continue. During landing he doesn't get closer than 6 inches.

Are both A and B in compliance with 602.96(2)?
Let's say the drivers of the vehicles complain, TC investigates and the tribunal gets involved. Do you expect any different outcomes for pilot A and B?
Would 'well I obviously didn't hit anything, so there was no likelihood of collision' be an acceptable defense?

602.96 (1) This section applies to persons operating VFR or IFR aircraft at or in the vicinity of an uncontrolled or controlled aerodrome.

(2) Before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied that

(a) there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle; and

(b) the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.

[photofly]

I don't agree with this part though:


There have been a few links to some tribunal reports where the position of the tribunal was something along the lines of 'just because nobody got hurt/nothing got damaged doesn't mean that what you did wasn't reckless/unsafe'

You're conflating two issues. 602.96(2) doesn't require an absence of recklessness or lack of safety; it requires the pilot, in the moment, to "be satisfied there was no likelihood of collision". It doesn't require the pilot to be correctly satisfied, or reasonably satisfied, or satisfied to any level of objective judgement, whether that judgement is based on what was known by the pilot at the time, or what turned out later to be true.

If you see some vehicles on the runway, they're not moving, and the operators are all looking at you, then depending on circumstance, you could be satisfied that landing on a different part of the runway generated no likelihood of collision.

602.01 says 'No person shall operate an aircraft in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.'

The judgement about likelihood there isn't from the pilot's point of view, and can be exercised after all the facts are known. If it turns out that a situation was "likely to endanger" on when viewed from facts not know to the pilot, that would be a defence of "due diligence". But I don't see that is engaged in 602.96(2).

Don't you have the same subjective determination to establish how likely a collision will be?

Pilot A sees vehicles, estimates he will never get closer than 80 feet to them, and deems it acceptable to continue. During landing he doesn't get closer than 79 feet.
Pilot B sees vehicles, estimates he will never get closer than 1 foot to them, and deems it acceptable to continue. During landing he doesn't get closer than 6 inches.

Are both A and B in compliance with 602.96(2)?
Let's say the drivers of the vehicles complain, TC investigates and the tribunal gets involved. Do you expect any different outcomes for pilot A and B?
Would 'well I obviously didn't hit anything, so there was no likelihood of collision' be an acceptable defense?

602.96 (1) This section applies to persons operating VFR or IFR aircraft at or in the vicinity of an uncontrolled or controlled aerodrome.

(2) Before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied that

(a) there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle; and

(b) the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.

The minister wrote the rules; if he wanted to punish pilots for landing when there was an objective risk of collision, he was free to write the rules to make that an offence: "No person shall land or take off in an aircraft if there is the likelihood of a collision with another aircraft or vehicle." There - not difficult. But the Minister didn't write that.

What he actually wrote was that "the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied". If Pilots A and B were both so satisfied and held such an honest belief, then prima-facie they didn't violate that rule.

It's not anyone's job to make up for sloppy rule-making.